HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0789 and id is 1 raw text is: LLOYD V. LLOYD
might or might not have been correctly copied. The bill 'also stated that the
Plaintiff was entitled as the eldest son and heir of John Vernon ; how could that be ?
for it seemed that J. Vernon was tenant for life, and the Plaintiff the first tenant in
tail in remainder; so that, in point of fact, it would appear by the bill that John
Vernon was tenant in tail, and the Plaintiff claimed as his issue in tail; and if that
was so, he had no right to file this bill. His Lordship again repeated, that if a party
pleading made a statement one way, and a statement the other way, the Defendant
might take advantage of that statement which operated most against the Plaintiff.
There was evidently a mistake in the bill. His Lordship must, however, dismiss the
bill with costs ; but, as it was quite clear that the suit must be prosecuted, his Lord-
ship would give leave to amend the bill.
[187] LLOYD v. LLOYD. Feb. 7, 8, 1837.
[See note to S. C. Donnelly, 33.]
When mutual Covenants contained in Marriage Articles are ambiguous and contra-
dictory, the Court will put such a Construction on the whole of the Articles so as
to meet the Intention of the Parties; and though one Party fails in performing
his Covenant, it will enforce the Performance of the Covenant by the other Party.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, reported ante, p. 33.
Owing to the length of the judgment, we have not room to notice any of the
arguments. Mr. Wigram, Mr. Wilbraham, and Mr. Girdlestone, appeared in support
of the decree, and Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Pullen against it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR [Cottenham] said that the case turned on the question
respecting marriage articles made in 1777. It appeared that an intended marriage
was agreed upon, and the intended husband's name was Lloyd, and the intended
wife's name was Stephens. In the articles of settlement entered into between the
two families, certain property was agreed to be settled on the part of the father of
the intended husband, of which he was seised in fee; and [188] there was other
property agreed to be settled by the family of the Stephens, who were seised of it
under these circumstances, the father and mother were tenants for life, and the
intended wife was tenant in tail of a moiety. It also appeared that the property
belonging to Stephens was subject to a mortgage; and the marriage taking place in
1777, and the mortgagee being foreclosed in 1784, the property became lost to the
family. The bill was brought for the purpose of having the articles carried into
execution. No settlement was executed, and no conveyance made of the property
of the family of the husband, and, on his death, that property (not being conveyed),
descended to his eldest son, who devised it to the person who was the Defendant on
the record. The second son of the marriage claimed the benefit of the articles. The
ground of the Plaintiff's demand was, that the articles were so formed as not to
exonerate William Lloyd the elder from any obligation to settle his estate, because
Stephens did not settle his, and that he did not thereby become relieved from the
obligations to settle his estate. The question turned on the construction of the
whole context of the marriage articles.
Esther Stephens, the intended wife, was under age at the time the marriage took
place ; therefore, it was impossible to carry into effect the intention of the parties by
settling that part of which she was tenant in tail. The intention was, that, on her
attaining the age of twenty-one years, the father, mother, and daughter should bar
the entail, and settle the property according to the articles. (His Lordship then
read the recitals in the articles), and said-It was to be observed, that it was very
important clearly to see what was the meaning of the parties expressed in these
recitals. There was no time mentioned for conveying and settling, but the time was
mentioned for payment of the £200, which was to be at the solemnisation of the
intended marriage. It was quite clear, according to the contract stated in the
recitals, that Lloyd's father would be bound to pay £200, and settle the estates; but
when the articles took notice of the recitals as to Stephens, there was a marked
distinction between the time of payment of the £200 and the time of settling the
DONNELLY 187.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0789&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)